What is preterism? - 25 July 2009 |
|
Following this post on the subject of preterism, perhaps a few more comments on the subject might be worthwhile. In this post we’ll take a step back and clarify in a bit more detail what preterism is. In some later posts we’ll take a step forward and see what it looks like in practice.
‘Preterism’, in the most general sense, refers to the view that a given future-oriented biblical text refers to an event that now lies in the past. All orthodox Christians are therefore preterists on some texts but not on others. We’re all preterists on Mark 10:45 (Christ came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’, and the ransom has now been paid) but not 1 Corinthians 15:52 (the dead ‘will be raised imperishable’, but they haven’t been yet). However, although this is what preterist / preterism means in the most general sense, it’s not how the term is normally used.
Preterism most commonly refers to the view that a given future-oriented biblical text, which might be (and often is) thought to refer to the general resurrection / final judgment, in fact refers to the events surrounding the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. The texts most often debated include Mark 13, Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and the book of Revelation, but many others could be (and often are) thrown into the discussion, such as 1 Corinthians 7:26 (what is ‘the present distress’?), the book of Hebrews (what is ‘the world to come’ in 2:5, for example?) and a whole pile more besides. The term is normally used to describe a interpretation of these texts that relates them to AD 70, rather than the final judgment.
Preterism must be carefully distinguished from hyper-preterism (sometimes called ‘full preterism’ or ‘consistent preterism’), which wrongly claims that all such texts were fulfilled in AD 70. Hyper-preterism is heretical, not least because it denies such credal essentials as the future bodily return of Christ and the future general bodily resurrection.
Clearly, it is both possible (indeed, necessary) to be a preterist on some texts but not others. You could be a preterist on Revelation, but not Hebrews or 1 Corinthians 15; on Mark 13:1-31, but not 1 Corinthians 7:26, and so on. The question, ‘Are you a preterist?’ should therefore always be met with the reply, ‘On which text(s)?’
Moreover, the only way to answer the more specific question ‘Are you a preterist on text x’ is by careful exegesis of the text concerned. Taking a preterist reading of one text might incline us towards a similar reading of others – especially if they use similar imagery in similar ways, such as in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 – but it wouldn’t necessarily do so. Moreover, just knowing that it could be about AD 70 doesn’t by itself get us very far; it merely draws our attention to one possible interpretative option that we might otherwise overlook. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction, for it’s striking how many solid evangelical commentaries either dismiss preterist readings with a brief wave of the hand, or even don’t mention the possibility at all. Sadly, this often leaves them in a bit of a tangle. An awareness of preterism would often clear up the mess.
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Minister's Blog, Theology